There is a difference between showing your identity on a shaky medium such as the internet and bringing to light your hypothesis about the poster.

Of course there is. Is he afraid of saying who he is perhaps? I can make that guess without threat of banning, since he is making a number of claims without verification (notably that he was a member of our Church)...

...so, who is he?

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

For internet security purposes, no one here can be required to reveal his offline identity, so stop asking.

Well, then, I guess I am unafraid when it comes to internet security purposes, and the man begging you to ask me to leave him alone is a coward. I will post no further on this matter, and have nothing pleasant to say to his future, fake responses.

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

Well, then, I guess I am unafraid when it comes to internet security purposes, and the man begging you to ask me to leave him alone is a coward. I will post no further on this matter, and have nothing pleasant to say to his future, fake responses.

Are you referring to me brother? All my responses were to you and not to any moderators. Nothing pleasant to say to his future, fake responses? Where did that come from?

OK. Everyone just cool it.Suiaden, there is no need for ad hominems.Can we please keep this thread on track to discuss the Liturgy of St. Tikhon and the Sarum Rite without getting into personal insults?I actually think these are important questions which need to be examined in a scholarly way, rather than flinging insults.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

No one begged me to ask you to leave him alone, and calling someone a coward is an ad hominem, which is not permitted on the OC.net discussion forum.

Your forum is proving more trouble than it's worth. There are banned words, I can't call people heretics without flack, and random unidentified people can pull up personal stuff about my wife.

This isn't a good place to be, but your troll is comfortable. At least he's canonical. Maybe. Use the rules of logic. There is more ad hominem than you wish to catch. Selective catching of ad hominem is worthless, sir. In a dialogue, such prohibitions ARE ad hominem.

« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 02:57:33 AM by Suaiden »

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

Well, then, I guess I am unafraid when it comes to internet security purposes, and the man begging you to ask me to leave him alone is a coward. I will post no further on this matter, and have nothing pleasant to say to his future, fake responses.

This is an unacceptable and uncharitable post. All the active WR boards will be locked until further notice in order to allow heads to cool. Everyone do their research over the weekend and then post on Monday. GOOD NIGHT!-Arimethea

Something has been bothering me about your argument against the Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Your whole argument against is that it is based on Anglican practice. Correct me if I am wrong, you do admit that is was edited to be in conformity with Orthodox theology but you reject it because of its origins.

So based on that... Do you celebrate Christmas on December 25th (and please don't look stupid by claiming you celebrate it on the Old Calendar date in January, it is still December 25th)? The celebration of Christmas on December 25th has its origins in Pagan worship yet it was edited to make it a Holy day for Christians. Why can't something that had been developed in a community that at least has a basic understanding of Christian theology then be edited to make it Holy?

I can make a list of items and practices that have origins in Paganism that have been baptized and made holy and are now venerable parts of Orthodox worship and practice. Would you reject all of these too?

Your whole argument against is that it is based on Anglican practice. Correct me if I am wrong, you do admit that is was edited to be in conformity with Orthodox theology but you reject it because of its origins. So based on that... Do you celebrate Christmas on December 25th (and please don't look stupid by claiming you celebrate it on the Old Calendar date in January, it is still December 25th)?

The celebration of Christmas on December 25th has its origins in Pagan worship yet it was edited to make it a Holy day for Christians. Why can't something that had been developed in a community that at least has a basic understanding of Christian theology then be edited to make it Holy? I can make a list of items and practices that have origins in Paganism that have been baptized and made holy and are now venerable parts of Orthodox worship and practice. Would you reject all of these too?

No, I wouldn't.

The argument that "the Church has borrowed from paganism in the past" is a straw man argument. I never denied that there were elements of worship taken from paganism, or Judaism, in the Church's liturgical life. Nor have I ever said that such things are sin. This sounds like the Protestant argument that Orthodox are "Christianized neo-platonists", which we are not.

The truth is that the one has nothing to do with the other; the pagans were not trying to create a liturgy in opposition to the Church which the Church then adopted. They were simply doing what they believed before coming into contact with the Church. By contrast, the Anglicans, who knew very well *who* the Orthodox were, were creating a liturgy in opposition to the established one (the Tridentine and the Sarum alike) and rewriting texts to reflect anti-Christian views (I realize some would call this "reformation theology", but when you say priesthood, the visible Church, images, and the Holy Mysteries are "innovations" then your "theology" is "anti-Christianity").

So the argument that "the Church took certain symbols and days from paganism" (itself an exagerrated charge) is simply not relevant to the reality that the BCP rite is a rite formed in conscious opposition to the Church's available tradition. The Fathers did not bless such usages, and did not bless this one, which we can at least say for December 25.

I've stated this repeatedly, so from here on in I will simply refer to this post.

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

So the argument that "the Church took certain symbols and days from paganism" (itself an exagerrated charge) is simply not relevant to the reality that the BCP rite is a rite formed in conscious opposition to the Church's available tradition. The Fathers did not bless such usages, and did not bless this one, which we can at least say for December 25.

So are we frozen in time unable to let the spirit guide the Church? Yes we can agree that the formation of this Liturgy was done by people against the tradition of the Church but the Church has taken this ill conceived plan of the devil and baptized it to make it holy. The Church is a living breathing organism in which we pray for the Holy Spirits guidance and we judge the works by the fruit in which they produce and I have yet to hear of a good argument that those who are using the Liturgy of St. Tikhon are not good, believing and practicing Orthodox Christians and thus good fruit.

Funny thing. That's what Roman Catholics say about Orthodox *in general*, especially about "Eastern Rite" and how "frozen" their theology is. Orthodox Christians, however, know better, that in those ancient liturgies, and through the guidance of the Fathers who composed the sacred rites, that the Holy Spirit guides the Church as Our Saviour intended. The Holy Spirit will not be stopped by men; men can only lose His grace.

Yes we can agree that the formation of this Liturgy was done by people against the tradition of the Church but the Church has taken this ill conceived plan of the devil and baptized it to make it holy.

The Church's job is not to baptize rites, but sinners. The rites are the tools given to us by the Holy Apostles to save men. Are we now to use the tools of those who have abandoned the Church? To what end? A nice fuzzy feeling?

The Church is a living breathing organism in which we pray for the Holy Spirits guidance and we judge the works by the fruit in which they produce and I have yet to hear of a good argument that those who are using the Liturgy of St. Tikhon are not good, believing and practicing Orthodox Christians and thus good fruit.

I lack the proof you have of such. My experience has repeatedly been -- from the lower to higher echelons of people within the vicariate -- that "little has changed" in their change from (usually) Anglicans to AWRV members and their practice mirrors it. That tells me a great deal. They've changed religions, and strangely they don't notice a thing. Of course I can't say this about everyone in the AWRV. But I can say that many of these "Western-rite Orthodox" are more interested in being "Western-rite" than "Orthodox". If you'd like me to be clearer with an example, the spirit that comes out of the writings of (now-Deacon) Ben Johnson is that of a high-church Episcopalian and an Anglo-Catholic wannabe, not an Orthodox Christian. And if you like I can gladly cite proof. I can usually do it within three posts of his most recent. Let's see.

Oh, look. Under a Patristic quote, we get to hear from the wisdom of George MacDonald. So, you ask? Who is he? A member of the "dissenter" branch of the Scottish Church and a Congregationalist.

And that was two posts in. I'm not even going on the "Byzantine Orthodox" comment three posts in, there was an entire post written on it at Western Rite Critic (the author is a member of a SCOBA jurisdiction, so the typical argument I've seen of "you're a schismatic with your schismatic synod" won't apply here.) I will cite a section so that I can by forum rules include a hyperlink:

No, I don’t know what ["Byzantine Orthodox"] means either. Nor am I aware that the various synods of the world have declared themselves to be any such thing as “Byzantine Orthodox”. But that’s what Western Rite enthusiasts are calling you. It’s because they want to reformulate Holy Orthodoxy into a religious system defined by the selection of a particular rite, the religious endorsement of a body of cultural baggage, and the importation of a whole set of heterodox pieties on the justification that they’re “Western” and “Orthodox” people are willing to use them. They call themselves by the misnonmer “Western Orthodox”, and the only way to keep it from looking like a schism, a fetish, or a ploy (like “Charismatic Orthodox” - no such thing), is to try to rename the rest of us after their heresy. Yes, heresy, for it is certainly heresy to create another “Orthodoxy” in competition with the Orthodoxy already here present, and wed it to anything but itself, and claim that it is the rightful religion of those who live in already-evangelized lands. If it is Orthodoxy, let it be simply that. If it is Orthodoxy-plus or Orthodoxy-light, it is a deception, as well as a heresy.

The moral of the story is that what I see are not "good fruit", but exactly what using a fully Episcopalian ritual will bring to the Church: not converts from the Episcopal Church, but simply Episcopalians.

« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 04:13:45 PM by Suaiden »

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"

May I suggest that if you have questions about the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate, one might address those questions to His Grace Bishop BASIL (Essey) of the Diocese of Wichita and the Mid-America. His e-mail is openly listed on the Antiochian website under his diocese. He writes back within 1-2 weeks usually. The e-mail addresses of other members of the commission are listed on the Antiochian website as well. They have always responded to questions by people I have sent there in the past. His Grace Bishop Basil has many Western Rite parishes in his Diocese and was initially given the duty of Archepiscopal Vicar (i.e. bishop vicar) serving those parishes. Officially Western Rite parishes are under the ordinary supervision of their diocesan bishop. His Grace serves over the Western Rite Vicarate Commission as Archepiscopal Vicar. [Addendum:I will also be at a Parish Life conference next week for the Diocese of Witchita and Mid-America, where many of our Western Rite parishes will be present I will address some of your issues with them for their reponses it you like, PM the questions to me and I will gladly pass them on for you---they can then respond to them via e-mail if you wish.

His Grace Bishop Basil is also one of the leading Liturgists in the Archdiocese, his book, The Liturgikon: the Book of Divine Services for the Priest and Deacon, was published in 1989 by Antakya Press and serves as the guidelines for liturgical practice of the Eastern Rite in the Archdiocese. He is the only monastic hierarch in the Antiochian Archdiocese being a member of the Orthodox Brotherhood of the Monastery of St. John the Baptist at Tolleshunt Knights, England.

Here are the four Liturgies that I am aware of being utilized by the Western Rites of various jurisdictions:

Divine Liturgy of Saint Tikhon – This liturgy is currently used by approximately two-thirds of congregations in the AWRV. The Rite of St. Tikhon was developed utilizing the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican Missal. The Book of Common Prayer was altered by removing the filioque from the text of the Nicene Creed, include prayers for the dead, the invocation of the saints, strengthening the epiclesis within the Eucharistic prayer, and the addition of a few other prayers from the Byzantine Rite. It is utilized primarily by parishes formally of an Anglican/Episcopal background. A variation of this liturgy called "The English Liturgy." was augmented with material from the Sarum Missal and approved by ROCOR for Western Rite use. Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory – Utilized by the remainder of the AWRV, this rite is a version of the Roman Tridentine Mass which has been altered to remove the filioque and inserting a Byzantine epiclesis. It is used primarily by parishes formerly of a Lutheran, Roman Catholic, or Old Catholic background, including those incorporated from the Society of Saint Basil in 1961. One Orthodox Benedictine monastery, Christminster, uses a slightly different form of this liturgy. Sarum Rite – St. Petroc Monastery, a ROCOR monastery located on Tasmania, as well as its dependencies celebrate the Sarum Liturgy. Western Rite parishes under the supervision of the Holy Synod of Milan also utilize what it calls the Old Sarum Rite, which differs greatly from the version celebrated in ROCOR [This translation and rubrics are the result of the work of a former priest of the Milan Synod, Hieromonk Aidan (Keller)]. Liturgy of St. Germanus – Utilized only by l'Eglise Orthodoxe de France (ECOF), the liturgy of St. Germanus is a reconstructed version of what is presumed to be Gallican rite, but which has been supplemented with elements from the Byzantine, Celtic and Mozarabic rites. This was the Western Rite Liturgy encouraged in France by St John of Shanghai and San Francisco (ROCOR) when he was the Bishop serving ROCOR in France.adapted from article on Wikedpedia

While there may be individual opinions as to the use of the Western Rite, those Orthodox jurisdictions in communion with World Orthodoxy or put more succinctly those in communion with the historic patriarchates, recognize western rite Orthodox under the Antiochian and ROCOR jurisdictions as being fully canonical and Orthodox and able to commune within their jurisdictions.

The Church's job is not to baptize rites, but sinners. The rites are the tools given to us by the Holy Apostles to save men. Are we now to use the tools of those who have abandoned the Church? To what end? A nice fuzzy feeling?

This statement is why we will not see eye to eye. The Church is here to transform the fallen world into Paradise. That is the job of the Christian to be transformed so that he made aid in that transformation. In order for this to be accomplished all things of this world must be baptized and thus transformed to be made Holy for all things come from God and belong to God. The Anglican liturgy is without a doubt fallen but it can be made Holy through the Holy Spirit and The Church (to which you have chosen to separate yourself from, for those that are not in the Church are outside of the Church). With the eschatology you are preaching you can not be a part of the Church, thus why you are outside of the Church. You are one to talk about abandoning the Church. You and your group are not, have not and will not be a part of the Church no matter how much your boast of your correctness.

It is time for you to move on. Your facts are so off and you are judging a whole group based on a few,one of whom you are quoting is not even a WR clergy man but rather has always served in the Byzantine practice. If I was to do that I would think that the whole Milan Synod was full of (insert your favorite ad hominem here) based on what you are writing.

That is the job of the Christian to be transformed so that he made aid in that transformation. In order for this to be accomplished all things of this world must be baptized and thus transformed to be made Holy for all things come from God and belong to God.

The Anglican liturgy is without a doubt fallen but it can be made Holy through the Holy Spirit and The Church (to which you have chosen to separate yourself from, for those that are not in the Church are outside of the Church).

With the eschatology you are preaching you can not be a part of the Church, thus why you are outside of the Church. You are one to talk about abandoning the Church. You and your group are not, have not and will not be a part of the Church no matter how much your boast of your correctness.

Suaiden,I have had to reject your response to this because it contained tangential information together with relevant points.Please try submitting another response which contains only relevant points so that it can be approved.George

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

"We beseech thee also so to direct and dispose the hearts of ALL CHRISTIAN RULERS, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice and to the maintenance of thy TRUE RELIGION. Give grace o heavenly Father to all bishops and OTHER ministers... ( WRV has interpolated the names of the patriarch and bishop after the phrase, "OTHER MINISTERS"). Even before this verse the reference to "Universal Church' taken in context (which i havent quoted), is intended for those that understand the church as part of the branch theory. From an Orthodox pov this prayer is very awkward.

It might be reasonably claimed that there are no Christian rulers left, making that phrase something of an anachronism. In the happy old Constantinian Eastern Roman Empire, such a prayer would not have been in the least problematic, I would venture to say.

Quote

Later on in the Prayer of Thanksgiving, it says this: "...And that we are very members INCORPORATE in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people...." (these branch theorists dont even want to use the word 'baptised into' and substitute 'incorporate', regardless we can see the theological errors which alludes to the branch theory in this phrase)

I don't know of any Anglican who would ever have read the distinction you are making between "baptized" and "incorporate", and furthermore, the pun contained in the latter word is very much to the point. We are "incorporate" quite literally-- made part of the corpus, the Body, that is the Church. Not only is there no branch theory in this, I would argue that Cranmer's word choice is better than yours-- not because either is doctrinally wrong, as both are correct, but because the incorporation is the point here.

Quote

In the consecration we see that this liturgy was originally for those that denied the real prescense: "...Who by His own oblation of Himself once offered, made a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in His Holy Gospel command us to continue A PERPETUAL MEMORY OF THAT HIS PRECIOUS DEATH AND SACRIFICE UNTIL HIS COMING AGAIN."

At this point, you are going against scripture. Whatever else the Eucharist is, it is definitely a memorial-- what else can "do this in remembrance of me" signify? The problem passage comes later, at the epiclesis. It is certainly the case that the original words ("be for us the body and blood") were intended to allow almost any kind of real presence interpretation of what was happening. At a stretch one could even bend those words to a Zwinglian memorialist theory (which is what you are trying to imply, it seems to me), though semi-officially Anglicans have rejected that extreme. The major change in the "Tikhon" liturgy is the modification of that phrase to force a substantialist theory, to the point where it could be argued that it specifically represents the RC theory of transsubstantiation rather than the more usual Anglican theory of conssubstantiation.

It's a major problem for you to impose readings upon the Anglican liturgy which we ourselves do not read in it. Surely ex-Anglicans would be expected to at least come from their own readings rather than from a tendentiously hyper-Protestantized caricature thereof. Indeed, it would more reasonable to assume that Anglicans who find Orthodoxy tolerable would tend to the higher views of the sacraments, holding to substantialist views, much less those of real presence. As far as analyzing the words themselves, this is a real problem: it's hardly honest to accuse these people of trying to import Zwinglian or Lutheran views into Orthodoxy, as those kinds of Anglicans (as much as they exist) would absolutely reject Orthodoxy. Anglo-Catholics (and for that matter, even central churchers in this day and age or wild-eyed liberal broad churchers) simply do not hold to that view of the sacraments. What's happening is that you are overcompensating so hard that you're rejecting true theology because you hold that it might be misconstrued.

1) The body of the text of the Liturgy of St Thomas Cranmer was complied by Anglicans who were neither part of the Orthodox Church nor interested corporately in becoming part of Her. Massive parts of the liturgy were reduced first by the Roman Catholics, and then, BY THE PROTESTANTS to a few colorless pages (which confounds the ridiculous myth that "Western Orthodox have always had shorter services"-- in many cases the Western services were much longer.

[/color][/center]

Yes, the above quote is an opinion.

A) I do not know what the Liturgy of St. Thomas Cranmer is.

B) You do not show references to any accusation you made in your opinion I have quoted above.

- A writer must provide real references (not wikipedia) to back up his theories. You claim your opinions are facts. But you do not provide supporting referenced material to back up your opinion.

For example you write "Massive parts of the liturgy were reduced first by the Roman Catholics, and then, BY THE PROTESTANTS to a few colorless pages." That is blatant opinion. Remember I know nothing about the topic you are writing on here. If you know supporting evidence to back up your theory you have to show it. Otherwise how can the reader know where you are coming from and where to look in order to further investigate your claim as made in the above quoted material.

If the above quote was written with supporting evidence and references then the reader could go investigate your claims and either agree or disagree with the statement. However the way it is written now doesn't warrant any sort of validity. Without validity and supporting evidence the words are just opinions.

Let's try this again, and see if I care what people in polls think of me.

1) The "St Tikhon" rite of the AWRV was primarily written by Anglican heretics.2) Because it was written by such it isn't legitimate.3) The fact that I am an Old Calendarist acknowledging it makes no real difference if I am telling the truth.

This seems to me to be contradictory, because if the Tikhonian rite can be rejected simply on the basis of its (partial) authorship, then your arguments can also be rejected because you are part of a schismatic church. Conversely, if your argument stands on its merits, regardless of who you are, then it would seem to me to follow that the actual text of the Tikhonian rite is what matters, regardless of its authorship.

Furthermore, it seems to be that Jesus Himself speaks in support of the latter, and against the former, in the passage from Mark 9 beginning at verse 38.

This seems to me to be contradictory, because if the Tikhonian rite can be rejected simply on the basis of its (partial) authorship, then your arguments can also be rejected because you are part of a schismatic church. Conversely, if your argument stands on its merits, regardless of who you are, then it would seem to me to follow that the actual text of the Tikhonian rite is what matters, regardless of its authorship.

Now why didn't I think of that?Well spotted!

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Our Metropolitan was ordained according to the Ambrosian Rite many years ago, as a Western-Rite priest of the Moscow Patriarchate, before they abandoned the Western Rite to get closer to Rome.

*Just a small historical correction.

Metropolitan Euloghios of Milan (formerly Klaus Hessler) was a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church for 13 years, from 1970 to 1983.

His reason for leaving the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate was rather prosaic - money. The Municipal Council of Milan raised the rent quite significantly on his church building in Milan. He asked Moscow for more money but they never sent any and so he left Moscow and found a new Church allegiance, with a Greek Old Calendarist group which was willing to finance him.

Thsi is how it is explained on the official Milan website:

"In 1983 the municipality of Milan changed its canon of rent and augmented in the case of the big Russian Parish of St. Nicolas in Milan, the rent 70 time more. In this difficult situation Archimandrite Evloghij asked for the first time a necessary financial help from his Mother Church of Moscow. Moscow seemed to have not the “blessing” of the KGB, which controlled the whole church life, especially abroad, and for this reason Moscow Patriarchate abandoned completely the big Parish of Milan and his head, the Archimandrite Evloghij was obligated to ask for help another Orthodox Jurisdiction. There was not time enough for choice! Milan accepted the fraternal help of the Holy Orthodox Autonomous Metropolia of Western Europe – Greek Orthodox Church T.O.C., under His Beatitude Metropolitan Gavrijl of Lisbon, which was at that time the only true orthodox Church in western Europe with a missionary spirit."